E over R DEF 1817 Halfcrown

[PWA 1967 1,836]

2 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

I have said it many times it seems like unless your names XXXXXXXXXX good luck getting a variety published. You can even send the info to XXXXXXXXX and it still won't get published because they didn't find it. Or worse still they will tell you what you are seeing is an illusion yet the pictures and descriptions I have seen from themselves are borderline nonsense. The only way to have this information and has been said to me before is to do it yourself. I know for a fact the guy behind the spink book doesn't even want varieties in the book and if proof is the eating of the pudding 2018 book now omits 1860 6+H Penny variety. Which seems very strange as there was a price structure against the coin so it must exist somewhere. About time the guard was changed and the stuffy well to do's removed.

 

I dont doubt you Richard as you must have the book with the 1860 6 + H in it.

When was this put in Spink and maybe one of the problems that they put it in and later did not have enough proof to confirm it ?.

[zookeeperz 470]

36 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

I dont doubt you Richard as you must have the book with the 1860 6 + H in it.

When was this put in Spink and maybe one of the problems that they put it in and later did not have enough proof to confirm it ?.

Sorry My bad I should of  put 1860 6+G  Which disappeared from spinks between 2014-2018 and on the first entry line for a coin in F grade £500. Now as we know if they know of a coins existence but has not been through sales or they don't have any sales info  they attribute Extremely rare. So by entering a figure of £500 to me indicates at least 1 coin had sold somewhere? whoever the joker is in charge of publication data has no bloody right to remove any variety from the book when the coin collecting masses are paying his wages and paying for a detailed historic record of coins. His personal feelings have bugger all to do with anything and are his opinion only and remain that. Messing with publication material is to me a gross misuse of position and now that the book is in 2 parts with the decimal coins in their own book all the variety types known should have their place in the book if only for historical reference as to the workings of the royal mint. Where is the entry for the 1826 Half Penny with Roman I for 1? . I know of at least 3 in existence and certain publishers also  have been told this and with proof. But of course I forgot my names isn't XXXXXXXX.

 

[Rob 2,996]

I think people are getting too exercised over what does and does not get included. There simply isn't the room to include everything to accommodate all interests, and never will be. As it stands, the pre-decimal section of Spink weighs over 1kg. On a practical level I would like to see the weight reduce to below 1kg including packaging for postal reasons, so as far as I am concerned there should be either fewer coins listed, a smaller font size used, or they use less dense materials.

In terms of what should be included - this argument will rage indefinitely. If nobody knows of an 1860 6+whatever penny which was removed, then it could have been entered as an unverified opinion. After all, nobody has seen an 1845 crown with star stops yet and that has been in for years, ever since it appeared in ESC. All this huffing about not including a particular variety, which in practical terms is only slight variation from the norm, will if rectified, simply lead to a different form of largely incomplete references. Every denomination really needs a dedicated specialist volume to satisfy the specialist collector, but without a customer base willing to pay for the compilation and publishing costs, it will forever be the preserve of individuals. That is why you need to buy books and then some more.

Of all the omissions in CoE, there is only one that I feel really warrants inclusion - the 1695 DEI GRATIA halfpenny. There are many more which I feel could be left out.

[Guest Gouby fan.]

This is presumably why the 1860 6+G was removed from Spink - it doesn't really exist!

Snapshot taken from Michael Gouby's brilliant reference work on the Victorian penny, specialised edition shows it was post mint alteration. I agree that the only real answer is to gather numerous reference works along the lines of your collecting specialism; no one source will ever be 100% "right", even Spink.

 

[DrLarry 441]

I am happy to buy books and have spent my life buying expensive text books but when a copy of a book is £150 on Toy coins for example it restricts the opportunity for any new collector.  Ok so it interested me on this topic for a while so I bought the book.  It is a wonderful collation of information if a little out of date.  Then a secondhand copy of Peck will set me back £60, same with Dalton and Hammer but I have them and enjoy them and in many ways they have paid for themselves as I have built up my collection to give to the charity one token or coin you can pick up might make it pay for itself if it is a rare variety.  But it would be nice if we had a bank of knowledge that did not sit with an individual open access and yes of course any source material should be looked at with a sceptical eye if you can afford to look at it at all. 

Yes I have what I would consider 8 new varieties of 1860 penny because of things like repunching of a smaller older style letter in the legend by a more robust larger solid punched letter the same with the halfpennies of 61 and 62 .  I see them as subspecies, in fact I tend to approach my collecting in a phylogenetic way one leading to the evolution of the next.  It is still important information to know of these different types.  In the same way for example that in genetics the whole of the human genome is mapped out as the redundant aspects of the DNA can sometimes give us as much information about human evolution as those that give rise to obvious traits.  I just think the purpose of a collection is to lead us to better understanding notwithstanding you are all experts and have different opinions, information can be added to even by the "lowest" in the collecting ranking.  I just think it is important to let the system breath and the first step might be greater access to information.  

when i started collecting four years back the purpose was to find something to get me out of a chemotherapy haze, I had no idea that I would find many of the wonderful things I have found, it's like being an explorer of some lost history because as we know the Royal Mint are not the best custodians of information when records are lost or there is something to hide.  

The thing is when I find something out of the ordinary like the repeated B over R in the bronze series it is interesting from a human perspective but also it makes me look either side and ask the question why does it keep happening, more importantly what does it tell us about the workers in the mint.  Reading the diary of L C Wyon gives nothing away and I am glad they reduced the price to £10 for that old dinosaur of a reference.  If ,whoever XXXXXX is, cannot open their mind to the issues raised by these variations away from the normal then they stand ready to be judged as hampering the scientific approach.  We rely on things that do not fit the normal the orthodox to be signposts to events that break out of the accepted pattern and by ignoring or suppressing the information we could lose vital steps to improve our understanding of the chaos that must have existed as the country and the mint tackled a new material, design and all under political scrutiny, which when artists are at work can cause major eruptions potentially.   

[Rob 2,996]

I think we have two parallel threads here. There is no debate about need for both simple and detailed references, rather the extent to which they should overlap. i.e.These discussions are based around the desired complexity of a simple reference, because the detailed reference can always be expanded to include all information available - that is its raison d'etre.

The extent to which varieties are added to a book will be an entirely commercial decision and not based on the whims of individual collectors. It has to be a happy balance of time spent, information conveyed and profitability. Only the last point ensures you have any references at all.

There is an argument for dividing the pre-decimal CoE volume into discrete hammered and milled books just as the decimals now have their own volume, but every sub-division increases the cost to return ratio for the publishers as collectors will in many instances only buy one volume instead of the three available. I get copies of CoE to put on the table at fairs and will separate them if someone only wants one volume. Roughly half the book packs I buy for stock are sold as split packs and demand at the tables is such that I never get more than 2 spare copies of either pre-decimal or decimal volumes. i.e. the demand for both sections is roughly equal, notwithstanding the fact that eventually I must sell equal numbers of both parts by default.

[Peckris 579]

13 hours ago, DrLarry said:

yes I can but why then list any variety or error.... that was the underlying question really rather than the fact that there are hundreds of varieties of all number of coins in a series.  So perhaps my question would be best ask as follows: why do some get in the list and others don't? to say that they only list the more common would also seem not to fit because they list the E over R in DEI as extremely rare, some they list as Possibly Unique .  I am trying to understand the logic in the choice what to publish and what not to list.  But perhaps there are volumes and volumes of books picking up dust someplace.  Again I ask so that as a novice I should not bother the room with the many overprints I would like to ask you about which I have the R over B in the 61 halfpenny along with 10 other varieties  but not 62 R over B.  I am just trying to understand as I say 

 

9 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

11 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

I have said it many times it seems like unless your names XXXXXXXXXX good luck getting a variety published. You can even send the info to XXXXXXXXX and it still won't get published because they didn't find it. Or worse still they will tell you what you are seeing is an illusion yet the pictures and descriptions I have seen from themselves are borderline nonsense. The only way to have this information and has been said to me before is to do it yourself. I know for a fact the guy behind the spink book doesn't even want varieties in the book and if proof is the eating of the pudding 2018 book now omits 1860 6+H Penny variety. Which seems very strange as there was a price structure against the coin so it must exist somewhere. About time the guard was changed and the stuffy well to do's removed.

 

(Ignore the "PWA quote" - sometimes the quote posts feature goes absolutely barmy and you can't get out of it.)

Spink operate on the 'public demand' for inclusion. I tried for a few years to get the second George V silver obverse (1920-1926) and the 1946 ONE' flaw penny included. In the end, I quoted Gouby for the penny and attached a photocopy, and for the silver obverse, I did a mock-up of how the catalogue might look with it, which they more or less adopted in its entirety.

I would agree with Rob that there is a limit as to just how far you can go with varieties (the Roman section in Spink is only a 'type' catalogue, for example), but if you think there is something in the modern section that warrants inclusion, then just be persistent and who knows - it could get included. Just to underline my point, dig out their predecessor Seaby's catalogue from the 1970s or early 80s - you will find quite a slim volume with only the most well known varieties included.

[zookeeperz 470]

10 minutes ago, Peckris said:

 

(Ignore the "PWA quote" - sometimes the quote posts feature goes absolutely barmy and you can't get out of it.)

Spink operate on the 'public demand' for inclusion. I tried for a few years to get the second George V silver obverse (1920-1926) and the 1946 ONE' flaw penny included. In the end, I quoted Gouby for the penny and attached a photocopy, and for the silver obverse, I did a mock-up of how the catalogue might look with it, which they more or less adopted in its entirety.

I would agree with Rob that there is a limit as to just how far you can go with varieties (the Roman section in Spink is only a 'type' catalogue, for example), but if you think there is something in the modern section that warrants inclusion, then just be persistent and who knows - it could get included. Just to underline my point, dig out their predecessor Seaby's catalogue from the 1970s or early 80s - you will find quite a slim volume with only the most well known varieties included.

You would of thought being the money orientated operation that it is LCGS could easily produce an extensive list of varieties and sub varieties but I guess they would rather charge everyone £90 just to browse information they gathered off the back of collectors. Would of been nice to see them take the NGC and PCGS approach. Couldn't do them any harm. I remember when I was a member of the site before they took our money and threw us on the scrap heap with a £90 demand to enter the site again. There some extremely valuable coins I wasn't even aware of even in the decimal series. Off the top of my head a particular OBV/REV pairing on the 1974 10 pence is valued in the £1000's and 1951 festival crown having at the time many moons ago 11 different varieties. It is a travesty that this information is readily available. Hell if it was a lifetime membership of £90 I'd cough up in a heartbeat but £90 a year sorry that's taking the proverbal

 

[DrLarry 441]

I have registered as a wikki editor now so there is no problem with that from my point of view I will try to verify my findings with at least two examples of each I have and then anyone that wants to add to things can do so as they wish if they register.  To be honest it is quite a nice open way to detailing a coin in my own collection with some novelty which can be used, when I die, to sell off my collection for the charity. The alternative was a rather boring spreadsheet and lots of self orientated notes.  I like the idea of sharing it, giving people a more even playing field, on which may allow us to discover new things in our own collections.  Like that strange 1879 lighthouse flaw, it was just down to luck that J had another which he purchased and we could compare the pictures to see they are exactly the same.  The thing that is important for me after this is to ask the question why?  it may be that there is no mystery which is absolutely fine.  However, we may find a transition, or a reason for its existence beyond just novelty. 

[DrLarry 441]

yes I see that and perhaps in that issue of the  $$$$ preoccupation with the value is the central problem.  It is nice to look at coins as an investment but they rarely are likely to make anyone that rich and yet still money and value is at the core of the problem as it prevents in some ways the academic interest taking charge of collecting.  Personally I think we lose out on some important history when we effectively barr people from identifying aspects of their coins whether that is altered lettering, or designs.  Even that somewhat frivolous posting on the lumps of metal and the sinking ship in the 1806 half penny give us some clues about the history of the minting in the SOHO coins.  If nothing else the impact of the environment within the soho mint maybe.  Boulton himself refers  to the issue of rusted dies and the problems of the minting process in the references to the condition the early planchets arrived at the die presses and hence had to introduce some alternative approaches to resolve the problem. There is no doubt the steam driven process caused an atmosphere where rusting and damage to steel dies was a major problem bearing in mind the rate of production and urgency to deliver contracts on time and to a uniform standard quality. 

So whilst I would recognise that the "individual" might be driven by his or her pocket in making choices about value that remains a choice they make. We should all pass any references with a sceptical eye, that is the duty of anyone. If anyone is naive enough not to do so or to take an action  swayed by such "fake news" has only themselves to blame if in the saleroom their rarity does not reach the price they expect. 

there is a subtle line between presenting evidence for peer review   and presenting fake information it is important to create an environment that allows new findings to reach as many "experts" as possible to evaluate and follow up on ideas that change perspective. 

[Nonmortuus 848]

Posted elsewhere but my example of E/E/R:

 

[Nonmortuus 848]

And Nadeems example.